That's why Trump has been trying to teach us to be discerning when it comes to our daily intake of news fodder. FAKE NEWS is real. He has known
it and seen it long before he became president.

I have always felt that Trump's words and tweets -- especially the most obscure and random seeming -- are carefully chosen for a specific purpose. He
knows and understands how facts and truth have been obfuscated and confused, and he plays the game well.

Trump also personally knows -- and has known for decades -- many of the biggest players. He has alluded to the games he has had to play in business
because of these folks.

Yes, Trump is re-writing the rules of the game here even as he plays the game!

Oh please..
trumps view of the news is if its flattering to him it's real and if it criticizes him it's fake.
If it supports him it's real.
If its negative its fake.
Oh and most importantly
If it has to do with Russian collusion it's not only fake... it's a hoax too.

If these people are IC guys...its no stretch at all that things like open records could be falsified or changed. This is literally the type of work
the IC would need to be good at to cover their spies.

I agree with what you said up until this point where you make a totally unsubstantiated claim that Epstein was "switched out" without any proof
whatsoever.

Excuse me? I clearly and unequivocally qualified that statement by preceding it with "my best guess." I made no statement of fact except that
this is my best guess. Nor is the OP about what happened to Epstein, but about the leaks and rumors which are being stated as fact. And then omit
the rest of that entire paragraph --

...that whatever happened to Epstein that the official story would be questioned and dissected with a fine tooth comb. So they had to concoct and
plant a convincing story for those most likely to doubt and question and dissect the story, hence a pre-emptive "suicide" attempt, followed by a
successful "suicide," seemingly leaked by an anonymous posting on a conspiracy website an hour before it was made public, which naturally is further
"confirmed" by the subsequent news reports.

-- leaving my words without proper context.

And again here:

Then you make a preemptive strike against anyone who disagrees with you suggesting that anyone who does disagree must "prove you
wrong."

And what was a declaring they should "prove me wrong" about: Not whether or not Epstein was switched out or whether or not Epstein is in Witness
Protection. Nope. Here is what you omitted:

I have no doubt that there are shills on ATS whose sole purpose is to introduce and perpetuate disinfo... but I also have no doubt that there
others who are simply too lazy or ignorant to do their own due diligence. And these are the folks being played bigtime with their own consent and
cooperation. And there's no good excuse for that. None. Especially on ATS.

If this makes me the bad guy and the spoilsport, so be it. I'll take it. It's that important.

I have noticed how much of our legacy print media, especially NYT and WaPo, pepper so-called factual articles with negative adjectives and clarifiers
when writing about anything that could be positive for Trump. You have to be tuned in to notice it. It is done in a kind of sneaky clandestine
way.

As far as TV media goes, it has become mostly just opinion peppered with a few current events highlighted in whatever "light" they want you to view
the event in. It's getting very hard to watch any of it anymore.

The sad thing is that the Trump-hating socialist left are just in your face with it now. They aren't even trying to hide their bias and hatred
anymore.

My point is I don't think us as people without real resources and means and most importantly access or knowlege of their tradecraft won't have Any way
of figuring out what is and isn't faked/planted/manipulated...i guess thats my point. Its literally what spies and IC guys train their who lives
doing...being taught by folks who have been doing it their whole lives...and those methods and tradecrafts are some of the most closely guarded
secrets out there.

No I think corporate money/advertisers mixed with operation mockingbird type infiltration is what runs major media outlets. The truth is of no real
concern as long as agendas are furthered and money is made.

I have noticed how much of our legacy print media, especially NYT and WaPo, pepper so-called factual articles with negative adjectives and
clarifiers when writing about anything that could be positive for Trump. You have to be tuned in to notice it. It is done in a kind of sneaky
clandestine way.

And not just with or about Trump. Any time I see a descriptor or adjective in something I'm reading, it's a red flag that the article has a spin.
Like Joe Friday said, "Just the facts, ma'am." That is a reporter's job.

In the same vein, don't tell me that Trump said Hillary is ugly and her mother dresses her funny. That's just opinion and means nothing.

Likewise, too often an accusation by someone is reported as the "fact," but leaves the impression that the accusation is the fact. It's a journalists
job to track down that accusation and the known facts behind it -- or lack thereof.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.